Finding the instance reference of an object

[Dale Roberts]

On Oct 29, 9:13 pm, Joe Strout <j... at strout.net> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 2008, at 4:52 PM, Fuzzyman wrote:
>
> > You're pretty straightforwardly wrong. In Python the 'value' of a
> > variable is not the reference itself.
>
> That's the misconception that is leading some folks around here into  
> tangled nots of twisty mislogic, ultimately causing them to make up  
> new terms for what every other modern language is perfectly happy  
> calling Call-By-Value.

Doesn't this logic also apply to Call By Reference? Isn't that term
redundant too? (see my 3 C++ examples above). If not, why not? Are you
saying that C++ is capable of using the Call By Reference idiom, but C
is not, because C does not have a reference designation for formal
function parameters?

"Call By Object Reference" is an idiom, just like Call By Reference.
It is not a physical description of what is going on internally at the
register/stack level (which is always just shuffling values around -
or flipping bits, as Steven points out), it is a higher level concept
that helps people understand the *intention* (not necessarily the
implementation) of the mechanism.

You cannot look a C++ programmer straight in the eye and say that
"Python uses Call By Value, Period", without also informing them that
"Python variables can ONLY EVER hold object references - that is the
only "value" they can ever hold". Then the C++ programmer will go "Oh,
yea, that makes sense".

Instead of having to say all of that, we just give it a new name.
Instead of "Call By Value, Where Every Single Value Is Only Ever A
Reference To An Object Which Contains The Actual Value That
Programmers Usually Refer To", we just say "Call By Object Reference".

> ...
> 2. Because everything in Python is an object, you're not forced to  
> think clearly (and more generally) about references as values

I think we've shown that we are all in fact thinking clearly about it,
and we all (you included, of course!) understand what is going on.
It's just a matter of what words we choose to describe it.

Using your definition of value, though, I believe that if you want to
throw out Call By Object Reference, you also have to throw out Call By
Reference. See my 3 C++ examples above. And just for fun I did look at
the assembler output, and, indeed, the output for examples 1 and 3 is
absolutely identical. They are the same thing, as far as the CPU is
concerned.

Would you give them different names?

dale